4 ms·

why don't CCDH publish its research? its methodology, results and how they come to conclusion? Let the public decide. Can someone care to explain what there is

by jp42 3y ago

why don't CCDH publish its research? its methodology, results and how they come to conclusion? Let the public decide. Can someone care to explain what there is lawsuit, where is the Elon's contention?

steve_adams_86 3y ago
Here is a page where they detail some findings: https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-rise-in-hate-speech-under-elon-musk/ https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-r... I do wish they directly linked to a succinct summary of what they’re under fire for, but they have published this data on the site nonetheless.
- caeril 3y ago
  > There have been 17,937 daily tweets mentioning the misogynist term c*t on Twitter, up 33% on the average daily rate in 2022 before his takeover of 13,514 This is highly disturbing, and I'm glad CCDH is here to warn us of the dangers of Australians using the Internet. I'm curious what the proliferation of "dick" is on Twitter, as by their logic, it is a hateful misandrist word and must be stopped at all costs.
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    With dick, I have to wonder if they have a reliable way of excluding the name. When Dick Cheney was all over media in the early 2000s, this metric would be totally meaningless.
jp42 3y ago
I don't understand why I am being downvoted? I am just trying to understand what's going on & both side of the story.
- chomp 3y ago
  They just use Brandwatch and paste in the N-word and other terms to come up with their findings. It's not like there's heavy statistical analysis here.
- rideontime 3y ago
  Probably because, as the replies have shown, they have published the things you're asking for.
- atoav 3y ago
  I did not downvote, but I suspect two things: 1. Lack of research. You made it sound like the research was questionable, when it took me 30 seconds to find the publication and the methodology laid out within it. That means you spread wrong information. Even of that was unintentional, don't you think posts with wrong information should be downvoted? 2. The topic itself is not rocket science. Many people on here are also on twitter and have their own anecdotal data on such shifts happening. So by you being overly critical you making it sound as if this was some outlandish claim (Einstein was wrong), while it is pretty obvious to most (water is wet).
- godelski 3y ago
  > I don't understand why I am being downvoted? My best guess is that at the top of the page, in the center of the navigation banner is a link that says "Research + Policy"[0] which includes the requested data. Similarly a quick google search leads to the same page. The question itself implies that you (one or more) didn't open the article's link, didn't look at the website for their argument, and/or didn't attempt googling. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't, but no one likes performing a task for another which could have been more easily been performed by themselves. We've all had that boss... But maybe you did try to google or search and just failed to find. That happens. In this case, I would have changed your wording. Your parent comment accuses the CCDH of not doing something which we can verify that they actually did do. Instead maybe say "Does anyone know where I can find the CCDH reports? I'd like to learn more." And even if this was lazy (as above) people would probably be happier to provide. The second sentence about the public deciding is also not that great since it is indistinguishable from mob rule. The second line is better, but maybe we can tweak it a bit if you really are trying to understand both sides, we can be more neutral. "I'm not sure I have all the context here, can someone help me understand each side's position before I make a realistic conclusion?" would probably see far fewer downvotes. Political topics are charged and we all have different priors. Your language is accusatory of one side and so justifies a certain prior. Language is fuzzy and those priors are necessary since there's a lot of gaps to fill in (despite what one might think). What I've suggested may not be different from what you internalized your comment as, but it is different from how it will be read. These are two completely different things that don't necessarily relate. [0] https://counterhate.com/research/ https://counterhate.com/research/
atoav 3y ago
The methodology is in the published report: https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Failure-to-Protect.pdf https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Failure-t...
AlotOfReading 3y ago
The docket is freely available for your perusal on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67654013/x-corp-v-center-for-countering-digital-hate-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67654013/x-corp-v-cente...

by jp42 3y ago

steve_adams_86 3y ago

Here is a page where they detail some findings: https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-rise-in-hate-speech-under-elon-musk/ https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-r... I do wish they directly linked to a succinct summary of what they’re under fire for, but they have published this data on the site nonetheless.

caeril 3y ago
> There have been 17,937 daily tweets mentioning the misogynist term c*t on Twitter, up 33% on the average daily rate in 2022 before his takeover of 13,514 This is highly disturbing, and I'm glad CCDH is here to warn us of the dangers of Australians using the Internet. I'm curious what the proliferation of "dick" is on Twitter, as by their logic, it is a hateful misandrist word and must be stopped at all costs.
- steve_adams_86 3y ago
  With dick, I have to wonder if they have a reliable way of excluding the name. When Dick Cheney was all over media in the early 2000s, this metric would be totally meaningless.

jp42 3y ago

I don't understand why I am being downvoted? I am just trying to understand what's going on & both side of the story.

chomp 3y ago
They just use Brandwatch and paste in the N-word and other terms to come up with their findings. It's not like there's heavy statistical analysis here.
rideontime 3y ago
Probably because, as the replies have shown, they have published the things you're asking for.
atoav 3y ago
I did not downvote, but I suspect two things: 1. Lack of research. You made it sound like the research was questionable, when it took me 30 seconds to find the publication and the methodology laid out within it. That means you spread wrong information. Even of that was unintentional, don't you think posts with wrong information should be downvoted? 2. The topic itself is not rocket science. Many people on here are also on twitter and have their own anecdotal data on such shifts happening. So by you being overly critical you making it sound as if this was some outlandish claim (Einstein was wrong), while it is pretty obvious to most (water is wet).
godelski 3y ago
> I don't understand why I am being downvoted? My best guess is that at the top of the page, in the center of the navigation banner is a link that says "Research + Policy"[0] which includes the requested data. Similarly a quick google search leads to the same page. The question itself implies that you (one or more) didn't open the article's link, didn't look at the website for their argument, and/or didn't attempt googling. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't, but no one likes performing a task for another which could have been more easily been performed by themselves. We've all had that boss... But maybe you did try to google or search and just failed to find. That happens. In this case, I would have changed your wording. Your parent comment accuses the CCDH of not doing something which we can verify that they actually did do. Instead maybe say "Does anyone know where I can find the CCDH reports? I'd like to learn more." And even if this was lazy (as above) people would probably be happier to provide. The second sentence about the public deciding is also not that great since it is indistinguishable from mob rule. The second line is better, but maybe we can tweak it a bit if you really are trying to understand both sides, we can be more neutral. "I'm not sure I have all the context here, can someone help me understand each side's position before I make a realistic conclusion?" would probably see far fewer downvotes. Political topics are charged and we all have different priors. Your language is accusatory of one side and so justifies a certain prior. Language is fuzzy and those priors are necessary since there's a lot of gaps to fill in (despite what one might think). What I've suggested may not be different from what you internalized your comment as, but it is different from how it will be read. These are two completely different things that don't necessarily relate. [0] https://counterhate.com/research/ https://counterhate.com/research/

atoav 3y ago

The methodology is in the published report: https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Failure-to-Protect.pdf https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Failure-t...

AlotOfReading 3y ago

The docket is freely available for your perusal on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67654013/x-corp-v-center-for-countering-digital-hate-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67654013/x-corp-v-cente...